Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Dhanpat Ram

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2019SAW/355/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Benches of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a belated appeal by the State against a Single Judge order. The court relied on a prior judgment holding that subsequent commercial use does not determine value for residential property, finding no merit in reducing the respondent's liability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the State was dismissed with no merit found.

State of Rajasthan Vs Dhanpat Ram — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 355/2019

¶3

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Sub Registrar, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dhanpat Ram S/o Shri Asharam Jat, Dholipal, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶7

Hajariram S/o Shri Danaram, By Caste Jat, R/o Town Dhani, 17 Hmh, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶8

The Collector (Stamps), Hanumangarh.

¶9

The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG.

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

01/07/2019

¶15

The State has preferred this belated appeal (delay of 61 days) against an order of the learned Single Judge who upheld the concurrent order of the Appellate Authority and the Rajasthan Tax Board, with respect to the correctness of the value of the land which was subjected to stamp duty.

¶16

The respondent purchased property (Plot No.332 40’x60’) Kothi Area, Hanumangarh. The plot was constructed upon and the sale deed was executed in respect of two portions, both of which were valued at ₹ 3 lacs.

¶17

The Collector (Stamps), Hanumangarh, held that based upon an inspection of the site, carried out after the transaction, that the

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[SAW-355/2019]

¶20

property was a temporary godown for liquor storage. The Collector’s determination was that the property has to be valued accordingly at ₹ 6,91,500. The State preferred the revision before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which declined relief by its order dated 14.09.2011. The writ petition was preferred by the State – unsuccessfully as is evident from the impugned order.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State urged that the use of the premises howsoever temporarily, determines the basis for its market value. It was contended that the inspection carried out by the Collector was not disputed by the respondent. In these circumstances, true market value – based upon commercial use was as, is contained i.e. ₹ 90 lacs.

¶22

We notice that the learned Single Judge declined relief after taking into account a Judgment of this Court in The State of Rajasthan vs. H.L. Gehlot Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.851/2014 where it was held that subsequent use- i.e. after the transaction, as commercial, would not be determinated if the premises were residential. The record in this case indicates that surrounding areas were residential as indeed the property in question is also designated to be residential.

¶23

Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶25

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶26

6-Ashutosh/-

State of Rajasthan v. Dhanpat Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Dhanpat Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prem Vs State of Rajasthan

Union of India Vs M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

R.R.V.P.N. Ltd., Jaipur Vs D. D. Joshi and Ors.

M/S. Ashutosh Suitings Private Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank